K-Lo2 wrote:There's law and then there's process. Community groups sometimes can provide good feedback, even without veto power.

Or they can be like Yvonne and common sense ideas get shitted for no rational reason.

I think we'll have a better city if the community feedback is received from all residents of an area, and not just the loudest mouths like Yvonne that are retired and have nothing else better to do than to show up at every meeting. Greater use of the internet to inform the public about development to solicit comments, suggestions, concerns, and ideas should be used.

I noticed GRID real estate is attempting to do something like that with https://www.808pavonia.com/ and http://www.baldwinplacejc.com/ but there really isn't a venue to express opinions and suggestions other than contacting council or the developer directly. People are desiring to be more involved, and the internet could be one way to facilitate that.

It'll be interesting to see what happens when dispensaries open up for recreational weed. I'm anticipating the NIMBYs that pack every association and board to not allow that type of business to open up in their neighborhood against the best wishes of the residents that overwhelmingly voted in favor of it. Same thing with why we have such poor biking infrastructure - every bike lane proposal is shot down by those boards.

jc_dweller wrote:We are facing a Symes/Solomon runoff. I think at this time each candidate needs to clarify some of their platforms. I have one major question for each.

1. SymesA major component of Symes' platform is the empowerment of community groups in the development approval process. State statute (NJSA 45:55) does not grant community groups this power. (NYC does, which admittedly confuses people.) Jersey City is well aware that this is not permitted, and in fact in the one or two areas of town which suggest this is required (e.g. morris canal) both the City and community groups have acknowledged that they're "getting away with it" until a developer sues. How, then, does Symes intend to use her position to change a state law? Much of her platform has been on this, and I feel that she's making a promise to community groups that she simply has zero control over.

2. SolomonSolomon has had significant NIMBY undertones throughout his campaign. Notably, as it related to a project on the West Side (which obviously isn't even in Ward E), suggesting that neighbors should have a greater say in how a property is developed. (Relates to Symes, above.) This even hinted at having a choice as to who would move in next door (in this case there was talk of marketing a development to the jewish community which did face some resistance). How does he reconcile this with his claims of being welcoming to all and "progressive"? To what extent is a community entitled to impinge on the as-right development of private property? (Hint: the law already answered that.)

To correct myself above, though nobody pointed out the error, the section of law referred to in my Symes comment is NJSA 40:55 (not 45:55). Got crazy on the "5s". Just wanted to correct that in case anyone felt so inclined to look it up.

Thanks! I did look it up, and I though you we're pulling our legs at first with the 555 - it doesn't exist. lol

Except that the the development most likely wouldn't be affordable. Why would any developer want to rent for affordable rates unless thats the only way they could get a tax break - which has been the opposite case in JC

Why don't automakers only sell high end autos? Wouldn't they make more money if they forced everyone to by vehicles $50k+ in price?

The price of the apartment isn't what matters.. its the profit margin. If you can make $$$ renting 2 bedrooms in the $1,000 to $1,500 range, somebody is going to do it. The big developers go after the high end waterfront market. However, there are only so many people to fill those apartments.

Maintaining a profit margin means keeping units occupied. The nice thing about the lower / mid end market is that there is lots of demand. The tenants into living in an expensive tower on the waterfront generally aren't looking at renting out a unit in a 6 family apartment building in the Heights.

The problem is, people like myself and Brewster are barred by the R-1 zoning to provide apartments in that range. Because of the low density, you have to rent out the two apartments in a Bayonne Box at a really high rate to cover the taxes and mortgage.. It is really hard to make money on a two family. 4+ units is a lot easier due to the economies of scale (more units on a single lot.. cost per unit goes down).

Thank you MDM!!

I always get really frustrated when I hear people complain about the lack of affordable housing but then also protest new development or a zoning change that would encourage more units to be built.

FHA will finance as a single-family mortgage up to four units. If we were building more 3 and 4 unit buildings instead of the Bayonne Boxes, it would provide twice as many homes for families, at lower costs as you stated, and also serve as a retirement nest egg for a homeowner that can live in one of the units while getting a nice rental stream from the others.

Allowing 3 or 4 units in more parts of the city is the only way things will be kept affordable.

JFK, Summit, Central, Palisades could all probably see more intensification then they have now, but the Yvonnes of the city don't care about affordable housing than others - only self interests like the availability of parking.

jc_dweller wrote:We are facing a Symes/Solomon runoff. I think at this time each candidate needs to clarify some of their platforms. I have one major question for each.

1. SymesA major component of Symes' platform is the empowerment of community groups in the development approval process. State statute (NJSA 45:55) does not grant community groups this power. (NYC does, which admittedly confuses people.) Jersey City is well aware that this is not permitted, and in fact in the one or two areas of town which suggest this is required (e.g. morris canal) both the City and community groups have acknowledged that they're "getting away with it" until a developer sues. How, then, does Symes intend to use her position to change a state law? Much of her platform has been on this, and I feel that she's making a promise to community groups that she simply has zero control over.

2. SolomonSolomon has had significant NIMBY undertones throughout his campaign. Notably, as it related to a project on the West Side (which obviously isn't even in Ward E), suggesting that neighbors should have a greater say in how a property is developed. (Relates to Symes, above.) This even hinted at having a choice as to who would move in next door (in this case there was talk of marketing a development to the jewish community which did face some resistance). How does he reconcile this with his claims of being welcoming to all and "progressive"? To what extent is a community entitled to impinge on the as-right development of private property? (Hint: the law already answered that.)

To correct myself above, though nobody pointed out the error, the section of law referred to in my Symes comment is NJSA 40:55 (not 45:55). Got crazy on the "5s". Just wanted to correct that in case anyone felt so inclined to look it up.

Thanks! I did look it up, and I though you we're pulling our legs at first with the 555 - it doesn't exist. lol

K-Lo2 wrote:There's law and then there's process. Community groups sometimes can provide good feedback, even without veto power.

Or they can be like Yvonne and common sense ideas get shitted for no rational reason.

I think we'll have a better city if the community feedback is received from all residents of an area, and not just the loudest mouths like Yvonne that are retired and have nothing else better to do than to show up at every meeting. Greater use of the internet to inform the public about development to solicit comments, suggestions, concerns, and ideas should be used.

I noticed GRID real estate is attempting to do something like that with https://www.808pavonia.com/ and http://www.baldwinplacejc.com/ but there really isn't a venue to express opinions and suggestions other than contacting council or the developer directly. People are desiring to be more involved, and the internet could be one way to facilitate that.

I'd like to remind those who are newer here that 20 years ago HPNA was utterly controlled by dog people and was the force keeping dog runs OUT of Hamilton Park, since they had the run of the place and that suited them just fine. One needs to be careful who one hands power to.

It's also worth noting that not only is it outside the law to give special powers to a community group, but it's also not allowed to force a developer to even go to their meetings and present to the group. Of course most developed play along because it's not a big ask, and/or its easier than fighting at the Board hearing. But, one day a developer is bound to say "you can't make me," and threaten a lawsuit over it.

jc_dweller wrote:We are facing a Symes/Solomon runoff. I think at this time each candidate needs to clarify some of their platforms. I have one major question for each.

1. SymesA major component of Symes' platform is the empowerment of community groups in the development approval process. State statute (NJSA 45:55) does not grant community groups this power. (NYC does, which admittedly confuses people.) Jersey City is well aware that this is not permitted, and in fact in the one or two areas of town which suggest this is required (e.g. morris canal) both the City and community groups have acknowledged that they're "getting away with it" until a developer sues. How, then, does Symes intend to use her position to change a state law? Much of her platform has been on this, and I feel that she's making a promise to community groups that she simply has zero control over.

2. SolomonSolomon has had significant NIMBY undertones throughout his campaign. Notably, as it related to a project on the West Side (which obviously isn't even in Ward E), suggesting that neighbors should have a greater say in how a property is developed. (Relates to Symes, above.) This even hinted at having a choice as to who would move in next door (in this case there was talk of marketing a development to the jewish community which did face some resistance). How does he reconcile this with his claims of being welcoming to all and "progressive"? To what extent is a community entitled to impinge on the as-right development of private property? (Hint: the law already answered that.)

To correct myself above, though nobody pointed out the error, the section of law referred to in my Symes comment is NJSA 40:55 (not 45:55). Got crazy on the "5s". Just wanted to correct that in case anyone felt so inclined to look it up.

To clarify. Jacob criticized Rebecca for using her proposal to replace the role of neighborhood associations.

Personally, I feel that neighborhood associations are as good as the residents that participate in them. I certainly found going to VVPA meetings highly beneficial in learning about the community. There were the occasional cranks who dominated a meeting but generally they were good people, even if I disagreed with some viewpoints expressed. I met most of my elected officials for the first time through these meetings as well as the police departments representative (though that was replaced by larger "captain's meetings" a while back). I briefly helped form one in the Liberty Harbor neighborhood, where the residents all wanted development. After all, everyone was moving into a neighborhood that was being built up from scratch.

The law provides for community input formally at the meetings themselves. I think many people are disillusioned with that because the feeling is decisions have been made behind closed doors well before the public hearing. I do think we can improve public input without allowing NIMBYs (or, at the other end, developer shills) to take over the process.

To the extent Rebecca wants to create formal Community Boards or something similar, that have binding authority to approve or deny plans, that is not consistent with the MLUL and will require changes to the law from Trenton. To the extent she wants to increase the level of community input and do more of it up front, it can be done to some extent though likely not through an ordinance.

This is an awful idea. The neighborhood associations already have way too much power. A few of them have compromised boards rife with corruption. This is a good way to ensure we turn into San Fransisco and never allow any development because it will be perceived as threatening the home values of current owners in addition to NIMBY. I thought this was supposed to be the pro-development candidate? I would gladly support any Ward E candidate that supports 21st century urban planning policies along with muzzling and neutering the neighborhood associations.

.I thought I heard that Mayor Fulop was not going to get involved in the Ward E general election but he would support someone in a runoff. If true did he pick someone or is he just going to stay out of the runoff also?

Except that the the development most likely wouldn't be affordable. Why would any developer want to rent for affordable rates unless thats the only way they could get a tax break - which has been the opposite case in JC

Why don't automakers only sell high end autos? Wouldn't they make more money if they forced everyone to by vehicles $50k+ in price?

The price of the apartment isn't what matters.. its the profit margin. If you can make $$$ renting 2 bedrooms in the $1,000 to $1,500 range, somebody is going to do it. The big developers go after the high end waterfront market. However, there are only so many people to fill those apartments.

Maintaining a profit margin means keeping units occupied. The nice thing about the lower / mid end market is that there is lots of demand. The tenants into living in an expensive tower on the waterfront generally aren't looking at renting out a unit in a 6 family apartment building in the Heights.

The problem is, people like myself and Brewster are barred by the R-1 zoning to provide apartments in that range. Because of the low density, you have to rent out the two apartments in a Bayonne Box at a really high rate to cover the taxes and mortgage.. It is really hard to make money on a two family. 4+ units is a lot easier due to the economies of scale (more units on a single lot.. cost per unit goes down).

I think there needs to be some community input into the development process while also recognizing that residents do not have a NIMBY veto.

As the OP point out, state law, specifically the Municipal Land Use Law, governs the procedures by which development occurs. A developer has to obtain approval from the necessary boards, most notably the planning board, and sometimes the city council for things such as redevelopment plans. Those meetings provide for public input.

In Jersey City, there is at least an unofficial policy, predating Fulop, where if there is any perceived opposition, the Planning Board will tell the developer to meet with the community, usually through the established neighborhood association, to see if they can address such concerns. In some cases, that process leads to agreed on changes. In other cases, the developer holds firm. Sometimes that means a developer will receive approval for their plans over loud community objection because they have a right to it. The microunit development on Bright Street is a good example of that, although the city buckled down and had to be forced to approve through litigation because VVPA was so adamant in fighting it.

In other cases, if the developer doesn't have a right and needs a variance or something else, they may lose. VVPA successfully fought off a license for a sidewalk cafe and restaurant also on Bright because it wasn't required by zoning, and the owner inexplicably refused the offer to table their proposal pending a meeting with VVPA.

Some developers are more proactive and seek community input earlier. The Silvermans do this a lot and had a productive relationship with neighborhood groups, to the criticism of some residents who felt the relationship was too cozy.

To the extent Rebecca wants to create formal Community Boards or something similar, that have binding authority to approve or deny plans, that is not consistent with the MLUL and will require changes to the law from Trenton. To the extent she wants to increase the level of community input and do more of it up front, it can be done to some extent though likely not through an ordinance.

Note, I support Rebecca, but don't speak for her or the campaign on this point. I think that the criticisms of the policy from the OP, as well as from Jacob Hudnut during the campaign, have some validity and require that she recalibrate and refine her proposal.

Too late for that, this place was moribund before the election anyway.

IMO this notion of letting activist incumbent residents decide what happens in their neighborhood is absurd. In almost all cases they will vote for no development. No one has a right to a static neighborhood. Many of the same people howling about high housing costs are the ones preventing higher density.

Here's a thought experiment: convert Summit into a Bus Rapid Transit lane from Journal Square up to 495 through to the Port Authority, and rezone the heights area along it for midrise higher density. You would lose parking on Summit but thousands of new affordable homes with great mass transit and no need for cars would take its place.

This type of "New Urbanist" growth vision would absolutely be vetoed by existing residents, but potential residents have no vote.

Except that the the development most likely wouldn't be affordable. Why would any developer want to rent for affordable rates unless thats the only way they could get a tax break - which has been the opposite case in JC

Too late for that, this place was moribund before the election anyway.

IMO this notion of letting activist incumbent residents decide what happens in their neighborhood is absurd. In almost all cases they will vote for no development. No one has a right to a static neighborhood. Many of the same people howling about high housing costs are the ones preventing higher density.

Here's a thought experiment: convert Summit into a Bus Rapid Transit lane from Journal Square up to 495 through to the Port Authority, and rezone the heights area along it for midrise higher density. You would lose parking on Summit but thousands of new affordable homes with great mass transit and no need for cars would take its place.

This type of "New Urbanist" growth vision would absolutely be vetoed by existing residents, but potential residents have no vote.

jc_dweller wrote:We are facing a Symes/Solomon runoff. I think at this time each candidate needs to clarify some of their platforms. I have one major question for each.

1. SymesA major component of Symes' platform is the empowerment of community groups in the development approval process. State statute (NJSA 45:55) does not grant community groups this power. (NYC does, which admittedly confuses people.) Jersey City is well aware that this is not permitted, and in fact in the one or two areas of town which suggest this is required (e.g. morris canal) both the City and community groups have acknowledged that they're "getting away with it" until a developer sues. How, then, does Symes intend to use her position to change a state law? Much of her platform has been on this, and I feel that she's making a promise to community groups that she simply has zero control over.

2. SolomonSolomon has had significant NIMBY undertones throughout his campaign. Notably, as it related to a project on the West Side (which obviously isn't even in Ward E), suggesting that neighbors should have a greater say in how a property is developed. (Relates to Symes, above.) This even hinted at having a choice as to who would move in next door (in this case there was talk of marketing a development to the jewish community which did face some resistance). How does he reconcile this with his claims of being welcoming to all and "progressive"? To what extent is a community entitled to impinge on the as-right development of private property? (Hint: the law already answered that.)

We are facing a Symes/Solomon runoff. I think at this time each candidate needs to clarify some of their platforms. I have one major question for each.

1. SymesA major component of Symes' platform is the empowerment of community groups in the development approval process. State statute (NJSA 45:55) does not grant community groups this power. (NYC does, which admittedly confuses people.) Jersey City is well aware that this is not permitted, and in fact in the one or two areas of town which suggest this is required (e.g. morris canal) both the City and community groups have acknowledged that they're "getting away with it" until a developer sues. How, then, does Symes intend to use her position to change a state law? Much of her platform has been on this, and I feel that she's making a promise to community groups that she simply has zero control over.

2. SolomonSolomon has had significant NIMBY undertones throughout his campaign. Notably, as it related to a project on the West Side (which obviously isn't even in Ward E), suggesting that neighbors should have a greater say in how a property is developed. (Relates to Symes, above.) This even hinted at having a choice as to who would move in next door (in this case there was talk of marketing a development to the jewish community which did face some resistance). How does he reconcile this with his claims of being welcoming to all and "progressive"? To what extent is a community entitled to impinge on the as-right development of private property? (Hint: the law already answered that.)